At the risk of flogging a well tanned horse: we *recognise* a voice from
higher frequencies than the fundamental, from idiosyncracies of attack,
release and everything inbetween. But just as a recognizable face on a
television screen is only a substitute for the real thing, robbed of depth
(and, I suppose, the ability to respond to *us*): so the recorded voice, in
an (perhaps imperfectly captured) acoustical evironment that contradicts
that of our living room, with a different electronic response curve to the
gamut of frequencies than our ears.
I remember as a kid pretending to be an operatic tenor on the radio - the
first thing you do is constrict your throat to mimic the response of the
one-and-one-half inch speaker of the transistor radio. Today the
distortions are different, but just as misleading, particularily if you
have a sub-woofer! john
At 01:20 PM 7/3/01 -0400, you wrote:
... we can compare bad live
>recordings of famous singers with their studio recordings and not have a
>problem recognizing them as the same singer (and when i say that, i mean
with
>regard to how they sing and generally, what they sound like) so, we can look
>at those aspects of our performances and those of the big stars and compare
>those elements that are little affected by recording quality. even on a
>piece of crap, we will recognize a great singer's ability.
>
>mike
John Blyth
Baritono robusto e lirico
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
|
|  |
